4e D&D GSL Live

[Ourph]

Apparently so. He wants to change a power, not add an alternative. That's against the terms of the GSL.

What I'm missing is why it's essential to change the original rather than offering an alternative. Is it really the author's place to remove options from the end user? You can't control what the end user does with your product once they purchase it anyway, so why try by redefining core rules? Why not just offer the alternative and let the customer decide whether to use it or not?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Basically it boils down to WotC wanting to adopt the Microsoft model of development: You can develop additions to our products that add extra functionality, but you can't modify our product itself.

Well, it's hardly unique to Microsoft. I could name Apple, too, but it's pretty standard business practice in may areas.

 

[pemerton]

That jurisdiction thing is the main issue in the US. Unlike a centralized system we're Federal, so each State will have a different and often conflicting set of laws.

Australia is also a federal system, but under our constitution we do have a single common law of Australia (although, in practice, there are some variations from state to state because of the way our superior courts are structured).

Nevertheless, I would be surprised if there is any US jurisdiction which does not have some doctrine pertaining to excessive contractual penalties - I would expect the question to be, rather, one of what constitutes excess in such a case.

 

[pemerton]

Why would using the logo automatically lead to confusion? It is my understanding that a logo is a trademark just like any other, and can be used just like the words themselves can be as long as it is used in a manner that won't confuse.

First, "confusion" in trademark law probably has a technical meaning, and I would be hesitant to try and say what does or doesn't count as confusing without a sound knowledge of the relevant body of cases.

Second, why would WoTC not enjoy copyright in their logo, in which case reproducing it would be a breach of that copyright?

 

[pemerton]

And such a setting, in Wizards' eyes, dilutes the D&D brand because it is no longer representative of what they are pushing as "Dungeons and Dragons."

You can easily say, "The Gods do not exist in the World of TimeOut and, as a result, people do not choose to become Clerics or Paladins." That doesn't require you to redefine any terms or violate the stipulations of the GSL in any way. Clerics, Paladins and Gods are all still defined exactly as they are in the core rules in your product, players are just instructed that those elements won't come up in play.

I think Ourph is right here. As far as I can see, nothing in the licence or the usage guidelines precludes one from saying that the game element denoted by a certain 4e Reference does not exist in a given campaign world.

 

[pemerton]

What isn't cool is that WotC allows this in a way that poisons the content you create. If you write the Rapan Athuk adventure for 4e - great! but now you can't publish Rapan Athuk 3e, or True20, adventures - not so great, but acceptable. What's really got people in a tangle is that when 4e ends, and the GSL is hence revoked - you can't take Rapan Athuk and publish it under the OGL, under the Pathfinder Tenth Edition rules. You arguably can't even publish it under any other system, or into the public domain, as WotC is the sole judge of what's part of the same "product line", and may look at the content in deciding that. That's just has nothing to do with being allowed to make supplements rather than variant games, it goes way beyond that.

What part of the licence precludes publication of an adventure after the GSL is terminated? Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 preclude publication under the OGL, subsequent to publication of a new product or conversion of an OGL produce, of a GSL product. They do not preclue publication of that product under any other licence (and in fact 10.2 contemplates just this possibility) or independently of any licence.

 

[Boarstorm]

Sky... falling... must... warn... townfolk...

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Australia is also a federal system, but under our constitution we do have a single common law of Australia (although, in practice, there are some variations from state to state because of the way our superior courts are structured).

Odd I thought that you were a centralized system like Britain and many of the other former Commonwealth nations. In fact my college political science texts used Australia as an example of a unitary state. Oh well, nice to find out.

Nevertheless, I would be surprised if there is any US jurisdiction which does not have some doctrine pertaining to excessive contractual penalties - I would expect the question to be, rather, one of what constitutes excess in such a case.

You're right that every State will have some legal code pertaining to what constitute enforceable contractual penalties. Thing is there's no guarantee any two states will have the same idea of what is enforceable. On top of that a state may or may not honor the verdict of another state regarding the contract based on its own laws and any agreements or lack thereof between the various states.

 

[pemerton]

Odd I thought that you were a centralized system like Britain and many of the other former Commonwealth nations. In fact my college political science texts used Australia as an example of a unitary state. Oh well, nice to find out.

In that case I wouldn't regard your text book as very reliable! Australia has been a federal Commonwealth since federation in 1901 (prior to federation Australia was a collection of mostly self-governing British colonies).

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Odd I thought that you were a centralized system like Britain

The Law of England and Wales is different from the Law of Scotland, mate. Britain isn't a centralised system.